Sheriff won’t fight gun permit ruling

Law-abiding Californians have come another step closer to being able to carry guns in public.

Sheriff Bill Gore said Friday that he will not fight an opinion by a federal appeals court that ruled against the county’s restrictive policy on carrying concealed weapons.

In its ruling last week, a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a law-abiding citizen’s right to bear arms for self-defense should be enough good cause to grant a concealed-carry weapon permit, or CCW. It overturns the county’s system of requiring a gun owner to show a specific reason for carrying a firearm, such as working in a dangerous job or being the target of a stalker.

The case stems from a lawsuit involving an independent journalist who was denied a concealed-weapons permit by the Sheriff’s Department, because he couldn’t show a specific “good cause” to need one.

The sheriff had 14 days from the panel’s ruling to ask for the full appeals court to hear the case. Another circuit judge could also request a rehearing.

With no resistance from the sheriff, the case will go back to the U.S. District Court, which will likely follow the opinion and change the way gun permits are issued throughout the state. A date for a hearing has not been set.

In the meantime, the Sheriff’s Department said Friday that people who wish to apply for CCWs under the new guidelines can begin to do so, although the permits won’t be issued until the lower court says so.

Obtaining a concealed-weapons permit takes several steps. The application process includes a scheduled interview, state and local background checks, payment of fees and completion of a firearms course.

Gore wrote in a letter to the county Board of Supervisors that “there is no easy answer on which everyone will agree” when it comes to the issue of bearing arms, but the appellate court’s 2-1 decision did provide clear guidance on the issuing of CCWs in the state.

“Since becoming Sheriff, I have always maintained that it is the legislature’s responsibility to make the laws, and the judiciary’s responsibility to interpret them and their constitutionality,” Gore wrote. “Law enforcement’s role is to uphold and enforce the law.”

He notes that the court emphasized that nothing in the ruling should change long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or the carrying of guns in places such as schools or government buildings.

County Supervisor Chairwoman Dianne Jacob said she agreed with Gore’s decision not to appeal the case.

“I believe the appeals court got this one right, and I have no problem with law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons in the name of self-defense,” she said in a statement.

Edward Peruta, the journalist behind the lawsuit, said he hopes more San Diegans “will be permitted to apply for and obtain the CCWs necessary to protect themselves, their families and others if the need presents itself.”

The founder of American News and Information Services lives part of the year in a motor home in San Diego and has concealed-weapons permits in Connecticut, Florida and Utah.

San Diego lawyer Paul Neuharth, who represented Peruta and other gun owners, said there will always be a segment of the population who will carry guns illegally, and the new guidelines won’t change that. But it will increase the number of lawful citizens who wish to carry and puts California’s policies more in line with the rest of the U.S.

The restrictive policies the Sheriff’s Department has for obtaining a concealed-weapons permit was an issue in 2010 when Gore successfully ran for his first term as sheriff, after having been appointed to the job a year earlier. He is up for re-election this year.

Courts around the country have split on the issue of concealed firearms, meaning an appeal in the San Diego case would have been a potential vehicle to get the issue heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit judges who issued the majority ruling in the case, Diarmuid O’Scannlain and Consuelo Callahan, are considered some of the court’s more conservative members and were appointed to the bench by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively.

Judge Sidney Thomas, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, issued the dissenting opinion. Thomas pointed to how other “courts and state legislatures have long recognized the danger to public safety of allowing unregulated, concealed weapons to be carried in public.”